Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Sep 2012 14:51 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Apple Written by Scott Cleland: "With so many fanboys spinning Silicon Valley history, it's sometimes easy to forget about the real chain of events that led to the ongoing Apple-Google thermonuclear war, how the romance turned to hate. This timeline presents an interesting case about why, despite patents and prior art, Steve Jobs had plenty of personal reasons to despise Schmidt, Page, and Brin." Cleland has a very, very good point; quite coherent and well-reasoned... That is, if you haven't got a single shred of historical sense and completely and utterly ignore the 30-odd years of mobile computing development that preceded our current crop of smartphones. It's hard not to be reminded of how certain groups of people dismiss millions of years of fossil records because this record inconveniences their argument. In any case, a comment on the article answered the question properly: "Jobs was a businessman. He was angry he was losing money. Simple."
Permalink for comment 534656
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Losing money?
by Laurence on Mon 10th Sep 2012 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Losing money? "
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26


Samsung may be easily able to superficially copy Apple. I don't see them replicating Apple's financial success nor do I see their attempts to copy erasing what Apple actually created.

You don't need any one company to erase Apples market - it might be more a case of multiple companies eating smaller chunks of Apples pie.

Anyhow, we're both just speculating here and I'm not about to say that I even believe Apple will lose significant market share in at least the foreseeable future.

I was more making a point about why I believed Apple were the patent aggressors at this very moment rather than trying to predict the future.

My point is: you don't have a point and you aren't very well informed.

Clearly there's other misinformed people out there - some of whom write for financial magazines:
http://www.moneyweek.com/investment-advice/share-tips/apple-shares-...


And saying bubble over and over and over doesn't make for a bubble.

Hence why you explain your point like an adult rather than a child. Insults are not persuasive, do not educate people nor progress the discussion in any way, shape nor form. All they do is undermine your argument.

And quite honestly, from the lack of substance you've contributed to this discussion, I'm inclined to think that you're yet another fanboy: all bark and no bite.

If what I've posted (and that link I referenced) is really that inaccurate, then please offer your own hypothesis as to why Apple are presenting a different business strategy to Microsoft. Because it's ever so easy to be derogatory towards someone else who is brave enough to offer their suggestions, but a hell of a lot harder to stick your own neck on the line.

So don't be a coward, lets hear your "expert" insight. However if you have to fall back to insults then clearly your argument isn't strong enough to stand on it's own merits.

Reply Parent Score: 3